You mean the Dollar Bill that was second in the Preakness and got a lot of terrible trips....compared to the Bourbon War that was up the track in the Preakness and has mostly gotten good trips?

Please, enlighten me about how they are similar.

I lost money betting on both of them.

The gambler's equivalent of "four legs, a mane, and a tale."

I mostly only lost on Dollar Bill.

No, I'm referring to the Dollar Bill that was 4 for 22 and out of the money in all 3 legs of the Triple Crown.

You're right...he was 4th in the Preakness. I don't know why I thought he was second....and it wasn't even close.

He was still pretty good actually. He found trouble...but so did his rider.

Danny Gargan says Tax uncertain for Belmont after ordinary work..

I liked him...I think I bet him when he won at Saratoga and then followed him and bet him throughout the TC. Probably should have won at least a couple more races. I think I had him underneath Point Given in a couple big exactas in both the Preakness and Belmont...I'm almost over those losses...lol!

Sir Winston

He’s in the mix gonna box up 4-5-6-7-8 in the super. Listened to 12/2/89 from the fabulous forum today...good stuff

The take is regular players think horses can close because of the distance. The people in the know say you must be in a stalking position to win the Belmont. Both are right. But don’t waste you’re money on 9+10. Make money with 6+7 tomorrow is closers PARADISE

Am I the only one that likes MFer to finish in the money?

No pace to run at 2 back, and Didn't like those blinkers last time. Smith will ride him like Zenyatta and be moving well at the end to be along in time.

I will probably regret it but he’s tossed for me, even though I never liked adding the blinkers to begin with.

I have a hard time liking him here. Need to be near front and can’t see him being close enough. Tax is going to be an inclusion for me here as throwout the derby he’s right type to be close enough.